It's a load of miss directional twaddle. For a start it doesn't tell you by far the largest part of the 'welfare' bill goes on pensions and 'in work benefits'. And of course the other major drain on the welfare bill is housing benefit, the main benefactors being private landlords, not the actual tenants caught in the rented sector trap by both a harsh employment market keeping wages down and banks reluctance to lend unless you have a wacking great depot. Oh, and a shortage of affordable housing both for rent and to buy.

"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

It's a load of miss directional twaddle. For a start it doesn't tell you by far the largest part of the 'welfare' bill goes on pensions and 'in work benefits'. And of course the other major drain on the welfare bill is housing benefit, the main benefactors being private landlords, not the actual tenants caught in the rented sector trap by both a harsh employment market keeping wages down and banks reluctance to lend unless you have a wacking great depot. Oh, and a shortage of affordable housing both for rent and to buy.

They would have to receive the state pension for 38 years to become a net beneficiary.

I'm not quite sure that is how it is meant to work. We can't all be net beneficiaries.

For 49 years I paid various amounts of National Insurance that was used among other things to pay the state pension of those who were awarded a state pension between 1963 and 2012. Now I am on a state pension and no longer pay National Insurance, it is your turn to pay my state pension from your NI contributions.

To get a full state pension, you used to have to pay NI for 44 years, then a few years ago it was reduced to 30 years. Given you have to paid NI as long as you are working (up to 65) then I have in effect overpaid by 19 years.

To get a full state pension, you used to have to pay NI for 44 years, then a few years ago it was reduced to 30 years. Given you have to paid NI as long as you are working (up to 65) then I have in effect overpaid by 19 years.

John

The one thing you can guarantee that the government won't publish is the ratio of contributions-to-benefits by region and ethnic groupings.

Should the state pension be available to everyone or just those that need it? Obviously means testing is expensive, prone to abuse and stressful for those involved. But if you can afford to live without the state pension, should you claim it? This is a question that is going to have to be asked as the proportion of pensioners raises past the tipping point.

Should the state pension be available to everyone or just those that need it? Obviously means testing is expensive, prone to abuse and stressful for those involved. But if you can afford to live without the state pension, should you claim it? This is a question that is going to have to be asked as the proportion of pensioners raises past the tipping point.

For me, means testing pensions is the thin end of the wedge that'll end up with those that can have private pensions and everyone else having to prove they "deserve" income support pretending to be a pension. If you paid into a private pension for 30-40 years and then the pension provider said "we're not paying because you have been too successful in life" then you'd be suing them by the end of the week. I had to start paying self-employed NI stamp in 2007 and the documentation received from HMRC was that this was essential to ensure I was paid a full state pension in retirement, it certainly didn't entitle me to anything else such as JSA or other employment related benefits.

When I retire, I bloody well want my state pension, even if I'm successful enough to make me a multi-millionaire before then. I paid for it, I want it. I'd rather donate every penny to a charity than have the state not pay me for it after my contributions.

Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway

When I retire, I bloody well want my state pension, even if I'm successful enough to make me a multi-millionaire before then. I paid for it, I want it. I'd rather donate every penny to a charity than have the state not pay me for it after my contributions.

For me, means testing pensions is the thin end of the wedge that'll end up with those that can have private pensions and everyone else having to prove they "deserve" income support pretending to be a pension. If you paid into a private pension for 30-40 years and then the pension provider said "we're not paying because you have been too successful in life" then you'd be suing them by the end of the week. I had to start paying self-employed NI stamp in 2007 and the documentation received from HMRC was that this was essential to ensure I was paid a full state pension in retirement, it certainly didn't entitle me to anything else such as JSA or other employment related benefits.

When I retire, I bloody well want my state pension, even if I'm successful enough to make me a multi-millionaire before then. I paid for it, I want it. I'd rather donate every penny to a charity than have the state not pay me for it after my contributions.

State pension isn't a benefit. Its a contractual consideration. You (and your employers) are obliged to pay NI contributions and in return, the state agrees to pay you a state pension. Technically, you are paying for mine. Others (probably Sev) will pay for yours.

The Winter Fuel allowance is regarded by the European Court as part of the pension, which is why some - but by no means all - UK pensioners who live in other EU countries get it.

Bus passes: the Dept of Transport channels the money through local councils who then pay the bus companies for the revenue they have lost through allowing the elderly to travel for free. Thus if you are entitled to a bus pass but don't use it, there is no cost incurred. Thus pensioners who don't use it, don'y cost the taxpayer anything.

Free TV licences: not all pensioners get this. It's only for those 75 and over

For me, means testing pensions is the thin end of the wedge that'll end up with those that can have private pensions and everyone else having to prove they "deserve" income support pretending to be a pension. If you paid into a private pension for 30-40 years and then the pension provider said "we're not paying because you have been too successful in life" then you'd be suing them by the end of the week. I had to start paying self-employed NI stamp in 2007 and the documentation received from HMRC was that this was essential to ensure I was paid a full state pension in retirement, it certainly didn't entitle me to anything else such as JSA or other employment related benefits.

When I retire, I bloody well want my state pension, even if I'm successful enough to make me a multi-millionaire before then. I paid for it, I want it. I'd rather donate every penny to a charity than have the state not pay me for it after my contributions.

Absolutely, but there is going to come a time when the number of pensioners will exceed the number of people of working age, how are we going to pay for it then?

Absolutely, but there is going to come a time when the number of pensioners will exceed the number of people of working age, how are we going to pay for it then?

Pay more tax? Rely on the ingenuity an intelligence of your students and their students unto the nth generation to come up with a better way?

Yea, It's a demographic time bomb as it were with no easy answers. The financial load clearly can't fall on an reducing proportion of wealth creators and I am quite obviously not in favour of measures to reduce the number of pensioners!

Maybe create a national pension fund, rather then the current system. You pay your NI contributions in the fund and get your pension out when you retire. Govt pays in enough to ensure a minimum pension. Stiff transitionary problems though.

Absolutely, but there is going to come a time when the number of pensioners will exceed the number of people of working age, how are we going to pay for it then?

Haven't the governments been trying to alleviate this problem by raising the retirement age? The later they can push it back, the less time pensioners will be claiming for and the more of us oldies will have kicked the bucket by the time we qualify. It's a win-win for the government. Retirement at 80, anyone?

It's good to see that with the Tories making such a mess of being proper Tories that Labour are so willing to do their job for them.

How on earth do you cap the state pension? If you have a worsening demographic of pensioners, you either work them till they drop, cut the pension or introduce some sort of rationing.

Surely means testing pensions, pensions credits, winter fuel allowance etc is just absurd, would they expect people to have to keep proving year on year that they should still get paid, maybe an ATOS type of means testing where if you have any luxuries at all then you don't deserve it?

Then, if you raise the retirement age, are you going to commit to properly penalising age discrimination and making allowances for inevitable wear and tear on humans as they get on a bit? It's a far bigger problem than the government will admit, I've seen plenty of people seriously struggle to get work when they hit 50, never mind 60.

Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway

It's good to see that with the Tories making such a mess of being proper Tories that Labour are so willing to do their job for them.

How on earth do you cap the state pension? If you have a worsening demographic of pensioners, you either work them till they drop, cut the pension or introduce some sort of rationing.

Surely means testing pensions, pensions credits, winter fuel allowance etc is just absurd, would they expect people to have to keep proving year on year that they should still get paid, maybe an ATOS type of means testing where if you have any luxuries at all then you don't deserve it?

Then, if you raise the retirement age, are you going to commit to properly penalising age discrimination and making allowances for inevitable wear and tear on humans as they get on a bit? It's a far bigger problem than the government will admit, I've seen plenty of people seriously struggle to get work when they hit 50, never mind 60.

Oh dear, Ed. Leave him now, Yvette, before it too late! I can show you things that you've never seen with Ed......!

Ed Balls comments make sense if you get a £200k a year pension from a cushy bank job.
No need for the govt to pay more on top
Means testing should be brought in.

Wrong. The government is not paying "more on top". The government is paying the basic pension to which all of us (or almost all of us) contribute. It is the occupational pension which is "on top", not the other way round.

Remember, if you start with a false premise, you can prove anything. Including the need for means testing.

Ed Balls comments make sense if you get a £200k a year pension from a cushy bank job.
No need for the govt to pay more on top
Means testing should be brought in.

For a healthy working age person, means testing is fine. For someone in their 90s, getting slightly senile and in poor physical condition, trying to get the forms done alone is daunting, especially with the government's insistence on making all new forms online. Do you honestly expect anything other than the bare minimum done to be fair when managers and staff are under pressure to make cut after cut to payments? I can imagine the conversation at an assessment: "so, you went on a weekend away to Clacton last year, surely that means you have enough money" or "you live in a nice house, why not sell it? In fact, we're telling you to sell it because you're living in too nice a house to be paid by the state."

Also, means testing is expensive to set up, error-riddled and needs a fair appeals process, have you seen any evidence of that kind of competence from any government since... well... ever? The £250m IT system needed alone will come in at three times the price and need to be fixed for years, on a T&M basis, before it works anywhere near correctly.

Thin end of the wedge that even the Tories wouldn't go near. Fair game for Labour though, further to the right than Thatcher ever was.

Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway

For a healthy working age person, means testing is fine. For someone in their 90s, getting slightly senile and in poor physical condition, trying to get the forms done alone is daunting, especially with the government's insistence on making all new forms online. Do you honestly expect anything other than the bare minimum done to be fair when managers and staff are under pressure to make cut after cut to payments? I can imagine the conversation at an assessment: "so, you went on a weekend away to Clacton last year, surely that means you have enough money" or "you live in a nice house, why not sell it? In fact, we're telling you to sell it because you're living in too nice a house to be paid by the state."

Also, means testing is expensive to set up, error-riddled and needs a fair appeals process, have you seen any evidence of that kind of competence from any government since... well... ever? The £250m IT system needed alone will come in at three times the price and need to be fixed for years, on a T&M basis, before it works anywhere near correctly.

Thin end of the wedge that even the Tories wouldn't go near. Fair game for Labour though, further to the right than Thatcher ever was.

This is what concerns me most. I don't consider myself a natural Labour voter, I'm more of a conservative if I'm honest. However, I knew I could always count on Labour to act as brake on the worst of Tory excesses and also, more importantly, to come up with radical alternatives. It seems now that the radical alternative is to be worse than many Tories would even dream of. At a time when I desperately want an alternative (believe me, I've seen the effect of austerity policies in Greece), I have nowhere to turn. I really want to vote for change, but who offers anything credible?

This is what concerns me most. I don't consider myself a natural Labour voter, I'm more of a conservative if I'm honest. However, I knew I could always count on Labour to act as brake on the worst of Tory excesses and also, more importantly, to come up with radical alternatives. It seems now that the radical alternative is to be worse than many Tories would even dream of. At a time when I desperately want an alternative (believe me, I've seen the effect of austerity policies in Greece), I have nowhere to turn. I really want to vote for change, but who offers anything credible?

I just don't get it. It seems like the Labour party have looked at what Blair did that was so successful in 1997 and decided that it was chasing after marginal Tories that won it but haven't realised that they're not supposed to target the disaffected right wingers on the far side of the party.

The only reason Labour won't get a thumping at the next election is that Labour supporters have nowhere else to go and Lib Dem voters need somewhere to go.

Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway